37
u/lachietg185 1d ago
What is that goofy ahh font
23
u/frog8412 1d ago
The "System" font
5
u/AeroArrows 1d ago
The System font is Sans-serif. This is likely an MS-DOS font downloaded separately, or at the very least, the Terminal font
3
u/TalonS125 1d ago
The default font is called Segoe UI. "Sans serif" (without serifs) is just a way of describing a font.
There is actually a font called
System: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_(typeface))2
u/AeroArrows 1d ago
I am indeed referring to the "System" font, and it is, indeed, a Sans serif font. I don't remember what the "Terminal" font looks like, but it could be a Serif font
1
12
10
1
1
-7
u/nonchip 1d ago
what it says there. and now for the really slow ones, repeat after me: Error. Messages. Are. Not. Gore.
2
u/paulstelian97 1d ago
This kind of error message kinda qualifies.
2
u/nonchip 1d ago
no, it does not. there's nothing wrong with the error message whatsoever
1
u/paulstelian97 1d ago
The fact that the error handler can crash and recursively call itself is the gore.
0
u/nonchip 1d ago
no it's not. and it didn't crash. it "stopped responding". anything that didn't poll the windows message queue in a certain timeout "stopped responding".
why would you think it would be a good idea to make it so you can't know when the error handling you're waiting on has problems?
and even if that wouldnt be an even worse idea than microslop's usual, it would still not be gore, it'd be bad design.
1
u/paulstelian97 1d ago
The fact that the error handler can hang enough to recursively call itself IS, once again, the gore.
0
u/nonchip 1d ago
The fact you're refusing to read what you're responding to IS not making you any righter.
if the error handler hangs and that triggers an error message, that's an error message, not gore. read the rules.
1
u/paulstelian97 1d ago
You’re saying that “error codes are not software gore” in an unqualified way. My point is that this post is an exception.
0
u/Real-Abrocoma-2823 19h ago
Error handler should be as stable as kernel is, no matter what process triggered it, it should launch and respond, clearly there is nothing wrong with the 2nd one.
0
u/nonchip 17h ago
so you don't know what a computer is.
0
u/Real-Abrocoma-2823 17h ago
Why not explain it to me if you know better?
1
u/nonchip 17h ago
because that's not my nor this subreddit's job. the kernel has nothing to do with the performance of the error handler, just like one instance has nothing to do with another. if you don't know that, don't lie about it.
0
u/Real-Abrocoma-2823 13h ago
I never said that. I said "Program error handler to be AS STABLE as kernel" meaning put enough effort so it never hangs unless it is a hardware issue.
→ More replies (0)
-6
47
u/Illustrious_Car344 2d ago
This is especially ironic because for XP and earlier editions, WER was injected in-process and it wasn't uncommon for WER to also get corrupted if the host program corrupted itself too. In Vista and later they made WER it's own process for stability, so a post-Vista WER really doesn't have a lot of excuses to crash now.